Archived

Craig vs Krauss

Read 102054 times

Reasonable Faith

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • 66 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« on: March 30, 2011, 09:26:19 pm »
This forum is open for discussion about William Lane Craig's debate with Lawrence Krauss on "Is There Evidence for God?"

The debate took place at North Carolina State University on March 30, 2011. [ http://www.thegreatdebatencsu.com ]

RF

1

Cris Putnam

  • **
  • 26 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2011, 09:37:44 pm »
 

It was astonishing that Krauss' first tactic was to deny logic and reason. Dr. Craig quipped  something like "if that's the price of atheism then you're welcome to it." It reminds me of Francis Schaeffer's Escape From Reason. He's using quantum theory as his upper story blind faith in the irrational. He also never addressed how his belief in determinism undermines reason. It's so ironic that atheists represent themselves as defenders of reason when they invariably abandon it in their argumentation.

RC Sproul wrote:

 

"To be sure, the twentieth century has shown a tendency to ignore the law of contradiction as a necessary principle for coherent discourse. In reaction against previous forms of rationalism, many contemporary thinkers, particularly of the existentialist school, have maintained that truth indeed may be contradictory—that is, truth rises above logical categories and cannot be restricted by the law of contradiction. On the other hand, thinkers who have continued to operate using the law of contradiction have been charged with perpetuating Aristotle’s system of truth, which can no longer function in modern thought."

R.C. (Robert Charles) Sproul, If There's a God, Why Are There Atheists? : Why Atheists Believe in Unbelief, Revised edition of the book The psychology of Atheism. (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1978).
 

Then he used the "given an infinite number of universes then there must be one in which contingent beings exist" canard. I always laugh at this silly reasoning.

Dr Craig could just grant that premise and conclude that given an infinite number of universes there must be one with evidence for God. Debate over.

But of course you can conclude anything, which is why its a dumb argument. It just goes to show you the veracity of Paul's argument from 2000 years ago:        

 

“For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. ” (Ro 1:21)


2

Joseph Evensen

  • **
  • 527 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2011, 09:09:18 am »
Right.  All Atheist really know God exists, they just deny it.  Silly Atheist.

3

John Leonard

  • **
  • 628 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2011, 01:05:23 pm »

I like what sinclairjd said here and here.

http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com

4

John Leonard

  • **
  • 628 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #4 on: March 31, 2011, 01:13:31 pm »
Dr. William Lane Craig says this in his fb account:

====================================

A Brief Post-Mortem.
by William Lane Craig on Thursday, March 31, 2011 at 5:28am

Thank you all for your kind comments on the debate and for your prayers for the event!  It was quite a show, wasn’t it?  Here are a few of my impressions from an insider’s perspective:

1.  The debate illustrates once again the power of a praying wife.

2.  Some people have commented on the music played before the debate.  That was not part of the event planning—it was music from Dr. Krauss’s own laptop that he was playing as he was testing his powerpoint!  I rather enjoyed it myself.

3.  I was troubled that the moderator’s remarks prior to the debate (which I believe were provided to him, so this is no fault of the judge) seriously misrepresented the topic under debate that evening.  The question was “Is There Evidence for God?”  But the moderator’s statement repeatedly stated the topic as “Is There Sufficient Evidence for God?”  That is a vastly different topic!  By sneaking in the word “sufficient,” you immediately raise the question, “Sufficient for what?”  Sufficient to compel belief in God?  Sufficient to justify belief in God?  Sufficient to make belief in God rational?  What exactly are you talking about?  By contrast, as I explained, when one asks, “Is There Evidence for God?” all that means is “Is the probability of God’s existence greater given certain facts than it is just on one’s background information alone?”  That question makes the debate a cakewalk for me (contrary to Krauss’s assertion that I was brave or foolhardy).  In a court of law, of course there is evidence for the guilt of the accused, even if that evidence isn’t sufficient to convict.  So here, to say there is evidence for God isn’t to say that that evidence is sufficient to show God exists.  In order to determine that, one would need to discuss as well the probability of God’s existence on the background information alone.  That’s why, as Krauss stated, this wasn’t a debate on the existence of God.  It was merely on whether there is any evidence for God’s existence.  For that reason, I actually toyed with idea of not presenting the deductive formulations of my arguments as usual, since that went far beyond the topic.  After hearing the moderator’s statement, I was so glad that I had decided to present the arguments deductively as well as inductively, thereby proving more than the topic demanded.

4.  I was frankly flabbergasted by Krauss’s opening salvo attacking logic and the probability calculus.  Can you imagine what people would think if, in order to defend a Christian worldview, the believer had to reject logic and probability theory?  This was the worst of several outrageous claims Krauss made in the course of the debate.

5.  I spent a lot of time preparing for this debate.  I had briefs prepared on every possible exception to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem.  Jim Sinclair actually took a day off work to help me deal with models involving topological changes of spacetime, models he hadn’t discussed in our Blackwell Companion piece.  Robin Collins provided me with extensive excerpts from his forthcoming book on fine-tuning and exchanged numerous emails on the subject.  Almost none of this material surfaced in the debate because Krauss’s responses to the kalam cosmological argument and to the fine-tuning argument (supposedly his areas of expertise) were so superficial.  Still I’m glad for all the extra work I put in because it really brought me up to speed on current work on these topics and was a great refresher course.  I’m grateful to Robin and Jim for all their help.

6.  Krauss had actually prepared for this debate.  He told me prior to the debate that he had watched some of my debates on YouTube, and he even commented that the necktie I was wearing was the one I wore at the Hitchens debate!   But I think he had not bothered to read any of my written work and so found himself ill-equipped to handle the arguments.

http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com

5

click_here

  • **
  • 49 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #5 on: March 31, 2011, 01:47:51 pm »

I was very disappointed.  It seemed apparent that Krauss did very little background work prior to the debate.

I also thought the debate topic was dull.


6

Randy Everist

  • ***
  • 1737 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Possible Worlds
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #6 on: March 31, 2011, 03:04:14 pm »
click_here wrote:

I was very disappointed.  It seemed apparent that Krauss did very little background work prior to the debate.

I also thought the debate topic was dull.

Indeed, I had an atheist on my blog who claims he e-mailed Krauss a couple of months ago when he found out about the debate and made him aware of WLC's tactics and arguments, as well as resources to draw on for potential counters and such. Apparently, Krauss' response was that he wasn't really going to worry about it. Combine this anecdote with Dr. Craig's FB post, and I'd say Krauss thought he was going to be able to defeat WLC's arguments by saying logic doesn't apply and science will provide the answers; why he thought this would work or be convincing I am unsure.

"Every great man was thought to be insane before he changed the world. Some never changed the world. They were just insane."

Check out my blog, "Possible Worlds," at http://www.randyeverist.com

7

Taryn

  • **
  • 9 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #7 on: March 31, 2011, 05:43:19 pm »
I have not listened to it yet, but maybe I don't really need to because I'm getting the impression that Krauss didn't really offer anything to the table, as it were.
“I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

8

John Leonard

  • **
  • 628 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #8 on: March 31, 2011, 10:47:55 pm »

RandyE wrote: Indeed, I had an atheist on my blog who claims he e-mailed Krauss a couple of months ago when he found out about the debate and made him aware of WLC's tactics and arguments, as well as resources to draw on for potential counters and such.

I think it's hilarious what desperate lengths atheists will go to, to get opponents to try to refute and corner Dr. Craig. Tabash studied everything about Dr. Craig and practically predicted Craig's every move. But what happened? Craig still beat Tabash in their debate (even Richard Carrier admitted Tabash lost).
http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com

9

Triptych

  • **
  • 387 Posts
  • Christian Apologist
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #9 on: April 01, 2011, 02:19:50 am »
         
         

20:41  "If you were an intellegent fish, you might ask the question 'why is  the universe made of water?' The answer is, if the universe wasn't made  of water, you wouldn't be around to ask the question."

Dr. Craig answers this VERY simple argument in  his MOST SIMPLE book, On Guard!!! The fact that "Dr." Krauss didn't even  take the time to read the material is really a slap in the face and an  insult to Dr. Craig.  Seriously, this was a waste of WLC's time, a complete waste.  It would have been a better use of time if Dr. Craig had come to my home and teach me some stuff for a week or so!!! NOW that's what I'm talkin about!!!

Honestly, this debate made me sick to my stomach.  I was actually excited to hopefully learn some good arguments against of God's existence through quantum mechanics... What a horrible disappointment... Dr. Krauss is literally, an idiot... If I Krauss was this bad, I actually wouldn't of even watched the video... Hopefully Dr. Craig answers some good questions in the Q&A section! I'm just about to watch it.

He answers this VERY simple argument in  his MOST SIMPLE book On Guard!!! The fact that "Dr." Krauss didn't even  take the time to read the material is really a slap in the face and an  insult to Dr. Craig.

         
   
"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark.
The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."
-Plate
“Reason is not automatic.  Those who deny it can not be conquered by it.”
-Ayn Rand
GodBls, L8

10

John Leonard

  • **
  • 628 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #10 on: April 01, 2011, 01:53:13 pm »

Just reading a few of the comments (and I mean very few, hardly any atheist believe Craig lost) in the video of the debate I think it's hilarious how atheists are trying to butch up by suggesting Krauss beat Craig. It reminds me the time when atheists were posting debates about Craig and Hitchens (and Craig and Dawkins as well) with titles like "Hitchens Destroys Craig" or "Dawkins Scares Craig." People.

http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com

11

Randy Everist

  • ***
  • 1737 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Possible Worlds
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #11 on: April 01, 2011, 02:37:53 pm »
drcraigvideos wrote:

Just reading a few of the comments (and I mean very few, hardly any atheist believe Craig lost) in the video of the debate I think it's hilarious how atheists are trying to butch up by suggesting Krauss beat Craig. It reminds me the time when atheists were posting debates about Craig and Hitchens (and Craig and Dawkins as well) with titles like "Hitchens Destroys Craig" or "Dawkins Scares Craig." People.

Interestingly, over at Apologetics 315 there are a few atheists who seem quite convinced Krauss not only did well, but won the debate as well. Chalk it up to bluster. A good point is that one is never sure what someone means by "winning" a debate; it could be whichever position I agree with, or whatnot. What I actually think constitutes winning is having better arguments. In this way, I could honestly say that I think an atheist won a debate against a theist (were the theist to have poor, or poorer, arguments). The trouble comes in assessing which arguments are better amongst those with which I disagree, at least in a fair manner. But in any case, while I can see atheists remaining so after this debate, I can't see atheists actually believing Krauss had the better arguments here.

"Every great man was thought to be insane before he changed the world. Some never changed the world. They were just insane."

Check out my blog, "Possible Worlds," at http://www.randyeverist.com

12

above

  • **
  • 197 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #12 on: April 01, 2011, 08:44:45 pm »
I don't think any reasonable person would claim that Craig did not win this debate. There is a lot that can be said about how specious krauss' arguments (if you can even call them that) actually were. I won't go over the specifics, but it's rather comical seeing an alleged expert in physics get stomped by a philosopher in his own field. But then again, philosophy always was and always will be the highest of all intellectual disciplines and the very thing that gave birth to science (empiricism) itself.

I would like to simply make reference to one point krauss made about the fine-tuning, after of course conceeding that the universe is fine-tuned and after providing us with his fairytale multiverse nonsense. At the end of one of his rebuttals he claimed that because the energy in 'empty' space is no zero life allegedly has a shorter life-span than it would have had the energy been zero. This was his concluding remark on the fine-tuning and I found it to be laughable... Humans currently have an average life span of 70-90 years? So if let's say that was 500-1000 years, what would prevent him from making the same argument and say "well we don't live for 50,000 years, we only live for 500-1000, that means that the universe is not fine-tuned"...???

I would ask if his man lost his mind but since he already rejected logic from the get go, I can only feel sorry for him. I think more than anything, the debate shows how irrational and desperate atheists are in proclaiming their faith... Blindly.

13

OrdinaryClay

  • ***
  • 4797 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #13 on: April 01, 2011, 10:43:28 pm »
Callisto wrote: I have not listened to it yet, but maybe I don't really need to because I'm getting the impression that Krauss didn't really offer anything to the table, as it were.

It's still worth listening to just to just to hear how bad Krauss does. I think he epitomizes the unjustified arrogance of the "new atheist".
"Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.(Luk 13:24)
So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?(Gal 4:16)

14

John Leonard

  • **
  • 628 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #14 on: April 02, 2011, 03:17:58 am »
Tim McGrew weighs in:



I watched the debate online last night. It was funny and sad at the same time -- Krauss was in free fall for most of the debate. A quotation from David Hume and a gesture toward the Euthyphro dilemma were the high points of his argument. I think that any open-minded atheist would have come away from that debate absolutely persuaded of three things:

1. Krauss is really excited about believing weird things (as long as they're not very much like God).

2. Krauss can't decide which version of nothing he likes best, but he'd rather not think about the metaphysical kind, and

3. Krauss thinks that 2+2 = 5 for large values of 2, or something like that.
I discussed the debate online as it unfolded, and the unanimous verdict was that you were hammering Krauss on the scientific and mathematical points and not just on the philosophical ones. Meticulous preparation pays off again!

It seems clear that his only preparation (if one could call it preparation) was watching your debate with Hitchens, and he doesn't have anything close to Hitchens's rhetorical gifts. I'm told that Sam Harris is in a different league when it comes to rhetorical skills. But of course you knew that already.

Blessings,

Tim

« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 11:47:37 pm by Reasonable Faith Admin »
http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com